Overview
Scott Spencer is a seasoned litigator who defends clients in complex civil litigation. The principal focus of his practice is defending employers in workplace disputes, including discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and failure-to-accommodate claims. Scott advises and represents employers through all stages of litigation, from early case assessment and discovery through dispositive motions, trial, and appeal. His practice also includes catastrophic injury and wrongful death defense.
Scott brings substantial private- and public-sector experience to his representation of employers. He served in several roles within the General Counsel’s Office of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, most recently as Senior Lead Counsel for Litigation for both the MBTA and MassDOT. In that role, Scott managed high-stakes litigation and appeals, supervised legal teams and outside counsel, and advised internal departments on risk management, personnel-related disputes, and liability exposure.
Accreditations
Admissions
- Massachusetts Bar
- U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Education
- New England School of Law, J.D.
- Franklin Pierce College, B.A., Criminal Justice and Sociology (with honors)
Representative Cases
-
2026 Employment Discrimination and Retaliation Matter (case name withheld):
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of our client, a large Massachusetts-based employer, in a lawsuit challenging its mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. The plaintiff alleged religious discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under both Title VII and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B after his employment ended due to noncompliance with his employer’s vaccine mandate. The Court held that our client had established a reasonable and accessible process for employees to request religious exemptions and that the plaintiff failed to produce admissible evidence showing he complied with those procedures. The Court further found that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory motive, concluding that the plaintiff's separation resulted from his failure to follow his employers established process for obtaining a religious accommodation —not his religious beliefs. This decision highlights the importance of clearly communicated accommodation procedures, consistent policy enforcement, and thorough documentation when employers navigate religious accommodation requests. -
2024 Wrongful Termination, Discrimination, and Retaliation Matter (case name withheld):
Attorney Spencer represented a large, Massachusetts-based, employer in a federal action brought by a former employee of one of its contractors. The plaintiff sought to assert numerous federal and state-law claims arising from his employment and termination, as well as more recent efforts to obtain employment with another one of the employer contractors, all under a “joint employer” theory. Following a dismissal without prejudice of the plaintiff’s claims under Federal Rule 12(e), the plaintiff amended his complaint. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the plaintiff permission to proceed with any of his proposed amended claims against the employer. The court concluded that the earlier claims were barred by both the doctrine of res judicata and a settlement agreement in which the plaintiff had released the employer from all claims arising before the agreement. The plaintiff’s more recent claims also failed because the amended complaint did not plausibly allege that the employer was responsible for the challenged conduct. All proposed claims against the client were rejected as legally futile. -
Town of Milton v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Mandamus Action (June 6, 2023):
Attorney Spencer secured dismissal of an action brought by the Town of Milton seeking to compel the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority to replace a staircase at Milton Station that had been closed after falling into disrepair. The Town requested a writ of mandamus (a legal tool used to compel the action of a government entity) and alleged that the condition of the staircase constituted a public nuisance. The Superior Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. It concluded that the MBTA’s enabling statute, G.L. c. 161A, § 5(a), establishes broad responsibilities for operating the public transportation system but does not prescribe the particular manner in which the MBTA must provide access to its stations. Decisions concerning station access, infrastructure improvements, and the allocation of limited financial resources therefore fall within the MBTA’s discretion and cannot be compelled through mandamus. The court also dismissed the public-nuisance claim. Such a claim required allegations that the MBTA had acted beyond its statutory authority. The Town’s allegations, however, asserted that the MBTA had failed to fulfill its statutory responsibilities—not that it had exceeded its authority. The decision recognized the substantial discretion afforded to public agencies when determining how to operate their facilities, prioritize infrastructure projects, and allocate public resources. -
2018 Wrongful Termination Matter (case name withheld):
Attorney Spencer represented a large, Massachusetts-based, employer in a wrongful termination matter involving an employee that was also a union member. Attorney Spencer moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff, as a member of an employee union, had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit and that he failed to join a necessary party (his union) as a defendant. The Suffolk Superior Court agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. -
2017 Real Estate, Breach of Contract Matter (case name withheld):
Attorney Spencer represented the plaintiff, a real estate development company, in an action arising from the attempted purchase of commercial property in South Boston. The seller signed an offer to purchase the property for $1.25 million but later refused to execute the purchase and sale agreement or proceed with the closing. After many years of litigation and discovery, the Massachusetts Superior Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding that the signed offer contained all material terms necessary to create a binding contract, that the seller had authority to bind the trust that owned the property, and that the defendants deliberately breached both the agreement and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Following additional briefing and argument, the court granted the plaintiff’s request for specific performance of the contract to force the sale of the property to the developer. Recognizing that real property is unique and monetary damages would not adequately provide the plaintiff with the benefit of its bargain, the court ordered the defendants to transfer the property in accordance with the original agreement. The court also entered judgment for the plaintiff on the defendants’ counterclaim under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A. -
Suarez v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 2015 Mass. App. Div. 47 (2015) Personal Injury Matter:
On an interlocutory appeal under the doctrine of present execution, attorney Spencer successfully argued to the District Court’s Appellate Division that the Boston Municipal Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim against the authority because the authority was a "public employer" under the MTCA and, as such, the superior court had exclusive jurisdiction of all civil actions brought against a public employer pursuant to the MTCA. The order of the Boston Municipal Court was vacated, amended and the matter was dismissed.
